Posted on Jan 5, 2016
Do you believe downsizing the military will be the cause of America's fall?
13.4K
103
43
5
5
0
Thanks for the huge number of responses! i have learned somethings about the militarys past that i probs would have never learned had i not posted this! Thank you all for your service and for teaching me more of the greatest militarys history.
Downsizing
United States
Military Industry
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 17
1
1
0
I do not believe that downsizing the military will cause america to fall Ryan Pecht
We downsized the military after WWI and dramatically reduced the size of the military after WWII. While our rapid downsizing after WWII made it difficult to respond quickly to the Korean War [Task Force Smith] we were able to mount an offense which was held back for primary diplomatic reasons rather than military ones. We experienced similar issues in the Vietnam War and in Desert Storm.
I enlisted during the Vietnam RIF period. I was forced out during the post Desert Storm RIF and moved from the RA to the USAR.
I saw a lot of turmoil with the previous RIFs which caused short to mid-term problems including initiating stop loss later in specialties that had been drawn down only to be required a few years later.
Up until now, the resiliency of the American fighting man and more recently woman has bode us well in times of conflict. thankfully our wars have been away from this continent since the early 1900's. I hope that trend will continue - both our resilience and intrepid national spirit and wars fought away from our shores.
We downsized the military after WWI and dramatically reduced the size of the military after WWII. While our rapid downsizing after WWII made it difficult to respond quickly to the Korean War [Task Force Smith] we were able to mount an offense which was held back for primary diplomatic reasons rather than military ones. We experienced similar issues in the Vietnam War and in Desert Storm.
I enlisted during the Vietnam RIF period. I was forced out during the post Desert Storm RIF and moved from the RA to the USAR.
I saw a lot of turmoil with the previous RIFs which caused short to mid-term problems including initiating stop loss later in specialties that had been drawn down only to be required a few years later.
Up until now, the resiliency of the American fighting man and more recently woman has bode us well in times of conflict. thankfully our wars have been away from this continent since the early 1900's. I hope that trend will continue - both our resilience and intrepid national spirit and wars fought away from our shores.
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
But COL Ted Mc, it doesn't require that you be able to get it everywhere. If you can get it where it can provide direct support for your main effort (say, a rapid advance along a major transportation route) -- especially if your opponent has nothing to pester it with -- then Bob's your uncle. A handful of self-propelled 85mm guns providing direct-fire support in the right place can make a huge difference.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
1LT William Clardy - Lieutenant; In general I agree. However, in defense you have to be able to get the firepower to where the Enemy's main effort is. Since both the (North)Koreans and the Chinese pretty much ignored the "communication corridors" and used infiltration tactics through the "impassible" portions of the Korean Peninsula as much as possible armor mobility was an important factor.
Some of the British Centurions actually had to be hauled into position by American Shermans because the tracks on the Centurions were ill suited to the Korean ground composition.
Of course the actual ordnance available also had a role to play. The tale of how a British Artillery officer instructed an American Artillery officer what the rounds he had sent over to the US battery were and how to use them by saying "Those are canister. Use as for ducks." (the Brits had canister rounds and the Americans didn't) is more likely true than not.
Some of the British Centurions actually had to be hauled into position by American Shermans because the tracks on the Centurions were ill suited to the Korean ground composition.
Of course the actual ordnance available also had a role to play. The tale of how a British Artillery officer instructed an American Artillery officer what the rounds he had sent over to the US battery were and how to use them by saying "Those are canister. Use as for ducks." (the Brits had canister rounds and the Americans didn't) is more likely true than not.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
COL Ted Mc, I think you are a little confused about the North Korean tactics in the opening phase (the offensive from the 38th parallel down to the Pusan perimeter). The North Korean tactics reflected Red Army (not PLA) doctrine and their main axis didfollow the lines of communication (road and rail) because that was the only way they could maintain enough operational momentum to overwhelm the ROK and US forces before reinforcements could be brought in through the port at Pusan.
And Red Army doctrine is very adamant about the importance of focusing combat power maintain momentum along the most successful attack axis.
And Red Army doctrine is very adamant about the importance of focusing combat power maintain momentum along the most successful attack axis.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
1LT William Clardy - The fact of the matter is that the KPA used the "bad" terrain in order to outflank the (South)Korean and American forces (who were restricted to the "good" terrain because "everyone knew" that you couldn't use the "bad" terrain offensively and that it was useless defensively) and defeat them in detail.
The joke on the line (once people started making jokes again) was "How many hordes in a G___ Platoon?".
Considering that the (North)Koreans used roughly 100,000 personnel in their assault on (South)Korea - which had only a TOTAL of around 95,000 troops (many of dubious loyalty to the Syngman Rhee "dictatorship" [which wasn't "really" a "dictatorship" because Mr. Rhee was "elected" as "President" and supported by the government of the United States of America {which had also supported Japan's conquest of Korea back at the turn of the century}]) in the ROKA this meant that the (North)Koreans were always able to muster at least the minimum 3 :: 1 advantage to attack defending troops, and considering that even one tank can do one heck of a lot of damage to defenders who can't harm it, the results were almost foreordained.
Had the (North)Koreans not - effectively - out run their logistical capacity, then ALL of (South)Korea would have fallen before any effective US/UN forces could have been mustered to oppose them.
Had that happened, then Korea would have been united today and (as with Vietnam) we might not be facing a failed state run by a bunch of rather unstable characters who think that the US is about to invade them and/or support the imposition of a dictatorship upon them based on the totally fallacious grounds that what the US had done twice before it might well do again.
The joke on the line (once people started making jokes again) was "How many hordes in a G___ Platoon?".
Considering that the (North)Koreans used roughly 100,000 personnel in their assault on (South)Korea - which had only a TOTAL of around 95,000 troops (many of dubious loyalty to the Syngman Rhee "dictatorship" [which wasn't "really" a "dictatorship" because Mr. Rhee was "elected" as "President" and supported by the government of the United States of America {which had also supported Japan's conquest of Korea back at the turn of the century}]) in the ROKA this meant that the (North)Koreans were always able to muster at least the minimum 3 :: 1 advantage to attack defending troops, and considering that even one tank can do one heck of a lot of damage to defenders who can't harm it, the results were almost foreordained.
Had the (North)Koreans not - effectively - out run their logistical capacity, then ALL of (South)Korea would have fallen before any effective US/UN forces could have been mustered to oppose them.
Had that happened, then Korea would have been united today and (as with Vietnam) we might not be facing a failed state run by a bunch of rather unstable characters who think that the US is about to invade them and/or support the imposition of a dictatorship upon them based on the totally fallacious grounds that what the US had done twice before it might well do again.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is a MAYBE answer. Depends on who attacks us and when. If China attacked us here in the Homeland after all the draw-downs take effect there is a chance we could fall.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
We all know that there are down times for the military, it's call PEACE TIME. Unfortunately, there are so many in this world ready to hammer any weaker or perceived weaker nation. Been happening since biblical days. The problem with downsizing our military is that it will tilt the odds toward anyone who wants to move in. We don't need to have a 15 million military force, but we do need to remain prepared with readily available and well training soldiers, sailors and airmen to deter any threat to this nation or it's allies. As I've read before, downsizing may not cause the downfall of our nation, but it will certainly make it easier for another nation(s) to try to overthrow.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Military down-sizing is just about on a 20-yr cycle. This trend hasn't impacted us thus far.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
I am with SSG Hasbun on this are education system here in the US is bad I see we teach to pass a state mandated test now a days
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google